Dear Hazel

Re: APP/M9496/Y/18/3201092

Appeal by David Lewis Associates at Edale House, Hope Road, Edale, S33 7ZE

1. Thank you for your letter dated 15th November 2018 in relation to the above appeal made by David Lewis Associates, I am now writing to confirm the Authority’s statement of case.

2. The Authority refused listed building consent for the proposed works on the 30th October 2017 and the attached delegated report explains the Authority’s reasons for refusing listed building consent (Document 1). Decision notice reference NP/HPK/0316/0215 is also attached for the Inspector’s information (Document 2).

3. The Authority requests that the delegated report is treated as the Authority’s statement of case alongside this covering letter.

Statement of common ground

4. The application which is the subject of this appeal sought listed building consent for various works as amendments to listed building consent reference NP/HPK/0714/0707 which are described within the submitted heritage statement. The application also refers to amendments to the planning permission reference NP/HPK/0714/0706 but the submitted application relates only to listed building consent.

5. The various works are referred to as listed building consent applications (numbered 1 – 13) in the heritage statement, however these works form part of a single application for listed building consent rather than separate applications. The delegated report and appeal documents refer to the same numbered works and for clarity this statement will refer to the works in the same way.

Continued overleaf...

Page 2 APP/M9496/Y/18/3201092

6. The delegated report makes clear that some of the proposed works were considered to be acceptable, that the submission of further details were required for some of the proposed works and that some of the proposed works are unacceptable. This is common ground between the Authority and the applicant. For clarity the position on each of the proposed works is summarised below.

Works considered to be acceptable

1. (1a and 1b), Retrospective and new alternative proposal: reduced width of wall in opening in hall.
2. Retrospective: Retain Chimney-Breast in first floor enlarged study.
3. Retrospective: Omission of door from utility room to the basement staircase landing.
4. Retrospective: Introduce flitch plate to strengthen the historically reduced trimmer to the staircase aperture in the attic floor.
5. Retrospective: Rebuilding the wall to the bathroom at second floor level.
6. New: Restoration of ceiling cornice mouldings in eastern-most ground floor room (considered to be acceptable in principle subject to additional details).

Works where submission of further information is required before the Authority could take a positive decision about the principle of proposed works

12. New: Proposed replacement of windows along with proposed double glazing on north and east elevations.

Works considered to be unacceptable

3. Retrospective: Duct to conceal pipework in master en-suite bathroom. (Originally designated bedroom 2)
4. Retrospective: Revised door location into master bedroom en-suite bathroom, and variations to the bathroom layout.
5. Retrospective: New wall, proposed further adjustment of the approved relocation of the door to first floor family bathroom, the provision of boxed-out service ducting and altered layout of the bathroom fittings.
6. Retrospective: Exchanging locations of the approved wet-room in the existing room in the north-west corner of the basement and the approved wine store in the room to the south of the central basement landing.
7. Retrospective: Exchanging locations of the approved gym and the approved cinema room in the basement.
8. New: Proposed exchanging the location of the entrance door currently on the east elevation and the window currently on the north elevation of the existing porch including providing a new door and associated making good of stonework.

Continued overleaf...

Statement of case

Proposed work 3: Duct to conceal pipework in master en-suite bathroom. (Originally designated bedroom 2).

07. This element of the proposed works relates to the installation of stud walling within the en-suite bathroom to the master bedroom. The Authority’s Officers took photographs of this work during construction and during the application site visit (Document 3). Photographs have also been provided by the appellant (see photographs 36 – 40 in appendix A8 of the appellant’s submission).

08. The Authority accepts that the en-suite bathroom was created during the twentieth century at the north end of the first floor bedroom which itself is located in the mid-nineteenth century western extension to the house. The Authority also agrees that the proportions of the en-suite bathroom itself is not of significance in relation to the heritage asset.

09. The proposal is to retain stud walling installed within the en-suite principally to conceal pipework. The stud walling has been installed and projects out from the original walls of the mid-nineteenth century extension. The stud walling here is full height along the north wall and as a result it is not possible to distinguish the position of the original north wall or identify that the stud walling is a later alteration.

10. Consequently the proposed stud walling impacts upon the proportions of the original room within the mid-nineteenth extension by altering the apparent position of the north wall and the window reveal. The Authority considers that this has a harmful impact upon the historic plan form and also a harmful impact upon the relationship of the wall with the window opening within the en-suite. Both the plan form and window opening make a positive contribution to the significance of the listed building and the proposed works have resulted in a harmful impact upon that significance.

Proposed work 4: Revised door location into bedroom 2 (originally designated master bedroom) en-suite bathroom, and variations to the bathroom layout. 11. This element of the proposed works relates to the alteration of the position of door openings into bedroom 2 and its en-suite bathroom along with changes to the en-suite including installation of stud walling. The Authority’s Officers took photographs of this work during construction and during the application site visit (Document 4). Photographs have also been provided by the appellant (see photographs 28, 41 – 44 in appendix A8 of the appellant’s submission).

12. The Authority accepts that the door in the corridor between the laundry and the en-suite remains in its existing position and therefore cannot be required to be moved. The Authority suggested to the applicant that this could be moved as the approved scheme positioned the door to open from the hallway which is considered to be an enhancement. There are no objections to the revised door location into the en-suite bathroom or the retention of the position of the door into the master bedroom. There is also no objection to the half-height stud walling to the west wall.

13. During works an existing chimney-breast was revealed in the north wall. The Authority agrees that it is appropriate to retain the chimney breast as part of the historic fabric. However the application proposes to retain new stud walling installed along the north and eastern walls of the house principally to conceal pipework and it is these elements that are of concern to the Authority.

14. This stud walling has been installed along and projects out from the external walls of the house. The stud walling along the north wall is full height and as a result it is not possible to distinguish the position of the original north wall or identify that this part of the stud walling is a later alteration.

15. The stud walling along the eastern wall is also full height but has been constructed to finish just short of the northern part of the window reveal and so it is possible to view the projection of the stud walling from the original external wall.

16. Consequently the proposed stud walling impacts upon the proportions of the room altering the apparent position of part of the north wall and the part of the east wall north of the window. The relationship of the stud walling to the east wall is obvious due to the projection of the stud walling resulting in an incongruous and unbalanced relationship with the window opening and reveal.

17. The Authority considers that this has a harmful impact upon the historic plan form and upon the relationship of the wall with the window opening within the en-suite. Both the plan form and window opening make a positive contribution to the significance of the listed building and the proposed works have resulted in a harmful impact upon that significance.

Proposed work 6: New wall, proposed further adjustment of the approved relocation of the door to first floor family bathroom, the provision of boxed-out service ducting and altered layout of the bathroom fittings.

18. This element of the proposed works relates to the re-building of the wall to the family bathroom and alteration of the position of the door to the bathroom, the provision of stud walling to the east and west walls of the bathroom and the creation of a room for a cupboard in the hall. The Authority’s Officers took photographs of this work during construction and during the application site visit (Document 5). Photographs have also been provided by the appellant (see photographs 46 - 48 in appendix A8 of the appellant’s submission).

19. The Authority has stated that there are no objections to the re-building of the wall to the bathroom or the re-positioning of the doorway. The Authority however does maintain objections to the proposed retention of stud walling to the east and western walls of the bathroom and to the retention of the small room formed within the hall.

20. The stud walling has been installed along and projects out from the eastern and western walls of the bathroom. These walls appear on the drawings dating from 1956 and appear to form part of the original plan form and consequently are of high significance. The stud walling that has been installed is full height and as a result it is not possible when within the room to distinguish the position of either the original eastern or western walls or to identify that the stud walling is a later addition.

21. The Authority maintains its concerns that it is inevitable that the proposal has resulted in a change to the original form and proportions of the bathroom which becomes more apparent when considering that the window no longer appears central on the southern wall of the bathroom and when looking from the hall where the position of the western wall in the bathroom is more clearly different.

22. The Authority considers that this has a harmful impact upon the historic plan form and upon the relationship of the walls to the window opening within the bathroom. Both the plan form and window opening make a positive contribution to the significance of the listed building and the proposed works have resulted in a harmful impact upon that significance.

23. A small room has been formed within the hall to be used as a cupboard. The Authority maintains its concerns that the proposed cupboard has a very clear and harmful impact upon the proportions and character of the first floor landing and also acts to obscure the reading of the original walls. The installation of the cupboard has also meant that the full-length steps up to the easternmost rooms have not been reinstated, which was part of the package of enhancements in the previously approved scheme. The Authority considers that this has a harmful impact upon the historic plan form and upon the spatial character of the hall which make a positive contribution to the significance of the listed building and that the proposed works have resulted in a harmful impact upon that significance.

Proposed work 10: Exchanging locations of the approved wet-room in the existing room in the north-west corner of the basement and the approved wine store in the room to the south of the central basement landing.

24. The proposal is to retain works carried out to facilitate the use of parts of the basement as a wet-room and wine store respectively.

25. The Authority does not possess photographs of either of these two rooms within the cellar prior to the work taking place. A photograph has been provided by the appellant (see photograph 66 in appendix D20 of the appellant’s submission and the appeal statement). The photograph shows blockwork either side of a corner which does not appear to match up with the areas indicated on drawing EDB-001 T-002 Rev F and it is not clear which room this photograph shows.

26. The Authority does however possess a file note in relation to pre-application discussions between the Authority’s Historic Buildings Architect (now retired), the owners and the previous agent (Document 6). This file note refers to proposals within the cellar and says “Whereas the rear and gable sections of cellar have been effectively spoilt, this area plus the proposed Wine Cellar are relatively unaltered and should be left this way. This implies no lining out of the walls, or visible heating.”

27. This assessment is followed through in the heritage and design and access statement and approved plans submitted with the previous approved listed building consent application (NP/HPK/0714/0707) which states that the least altered cellar is to be retained ‘as it is’ as a wine cellar.

Continued overleaf…

Page 6 APP/M9496/Y/18/3201092

28. There are no objections to the use of the approved wet room as a wine cellar. This room was accepted to have been significantly altered in the past and therefore that dry lining to facilitate conversion to habitable accommodation would not be harmful to the significance of the listed building. The use of the space as either a wet room or wine cellar does not change this conclusion.

29. The Authority maintains its concerns in relation to the works to facilitate the use of the room formerly proposed to be used as a wine cellar as a wet room. These works are detailed on drawing EDB-001 T-002 Rev F and include tanking the external walls and constructing an independent internal wall constructed with studs and waterproof plasterboard to avoid penetration of the tanking system and to conceal pipework.

30. From the evidence available this part of the cellar was relatively unaltered and as such will have retained its original character and made a positive contribution to the significance of the listed building, especially taking into account that large parts of the remainder of the cellar had been altered. In the Authority’s view the works to facilitate conversion to a wet room have resulted in a clear and harmful change to the character of this part of the basement and to the significance of the listed building.

31. The appeal statement and drawing EDB-001 T-002 Rev F refer to information provided by the owner in relation to water penetration and historic works including lining some of the walls in the basement with concrete blocks and floor sumps. Drawing EDB-001 T-002 Rev F does not indicate that any of these historic alterations had been carried out within this part of the cellar.

32. The statement goes on to say that to address the water penetration problem the basement was fully tanked including the floor and internal and external walls and describes this work as essential.

33. The evidence within the appeal describes the scope and extent of water penetration with water pumps placed within the proposed wine cellar and gym and frequent flooding in the proposed gym, wine cellar, stair area and utility. However, critically, there is no indication of water penetration or flooding within the proposed wet room, and there is no assessment of the different options available to address the water penetration issue and the relative impacts of these options upon the character and significance of the listed building.

34. Similarly no issues in regard to water penetration within the proposed wet room were described either during the course of the approved listed building consent application or during pre-application discussions with the Authority’s Historic Buildings Architect.

35. There is therefore no evidence to support the assertion within the appeal statement that the works undertaken were clearly essential to sustain and enhance the significance of the heritage asset. There is also no evidence or assessment to support the assertion that this basement room had no special architectural or historic interest.

Proposed work 11: Exchanging locations of the approved gym and the approved cinema room in the basement.

36. The proposal is to retain works carried out to facilitate the use of parts of the basement as a gym and cinema room respectively.

37. The Authority possesses one photograph of the room proposed to be used as a gym prior to the work taking place (Document 7), the photograph shows a large gritstone slab which is referenced in the file note by the Authority’s Historic Buildings Architect. A photograph has been provided by the appellant (see photograph 66 in appendix D20 of the appellant’s submission and the appeal statement), but this photograph shows blockwork either side of a corner, which does not appear to match up with the areas indicated on drawing EDB-001 T-002 Rev F or the Authority’s photograph and it is not clear which room this photograph shows.

38. The file note in relation to pre-application discussions between the Authority’s Historic Buildings Architect, the owners and the previous agent (Document 6) is also relevant to this proposal.

39. There are no objections to switching the use of the rooms to a gym and cinema room respectively. Both rooms were approved with works to facilitate conversion to habitable rooms, the main change, now being that the walls to the proposed gym would be dry lined and plaster boarded, whereas as approved they were to be damp proofed and finished in lime plaster.

40. The main proposed change is therefore the treatment of the proposed gym and the appeal seeks to retain the tanking and plaster board finish that has been installed.

41. Authority maintains its concerns in relation to these works. The appellant states that this room was unlikely to have been considered an important or architecturally interesting space and that prior to the works taking place this room was not more interesting or significant than the other cellar rooms where dry lining was approved (as part of listed building consent NP/HPK/0714/0707). However this is an assertion and supposition by the appellant and there is no assessment of the character or significance of the room prior to works taking place.

42. The appellant’s assessment conflicts with the file note provided by the Authority’s Historic Building’s Architect who describes the room following a site visit as relatively unaltered, implying that this part of the cellar retained at least a significant part of its original character.

43. From the evidence available, therefore, this part of the cellar appears to have been relatively unaltered and as such would have retained its original character and made a positive contribution to the significance of the listed building, especially taking into account that large parts of the remainder of the cellar had been altered. In the Authority’s view the works to install tanking with a plasterboard finish have potentially resulted in a harmful change to the character of this part of the basement and to the significance of the listed building.

44. The appeal statement and drawing EDB-001 T-002 Rev F refer to information provided by the owner in relation to water penetration and historic works including lining some of the walls in the basement with concrete blocks and floor sumps. The statement goes on to say that to address the water penetration problem the basement was fully tanked including the floor and internal and external walls and describes this work as essential.

Continued overleaf…

Page 8 APP/M9496/Y/18/3201092

45. The evidence within the appeal describes the scope and extent of water penetration with water pumps placed within the proposed wine cellar and gym and states that there was frequent flooding in the proposed gym, wine cellar, stair area and utility. However, there is no assessment of the different options available to address the water penetration issue and the relative impacts of these options upon the character and significance of the listed building.

46. Other options for finishes within the proposed gym were considered appropriate during the previous application, with damp proofing with a lime plaster treatment proposed rather than dry lining with plaster board.

47. There is therefore no evidence to support the assertion within the appeal statement that the works undertaken were clearly essential to sustain and enhance the significance of the heritage asset. There is also no evidence or assessment to support the assertion that this basement room (i.e. the proposed gym) had no special architectural or historic interest.

Proposed work 12: Proposed replacement of windows along with proposed double glazing on north and east elevations.

48. The proposal is to replace windows indicated on the drawings along with the provision of double glazing on the north and east elevations. The approved scheme (listed building consent NP/HPK/0714/0707) proposed new window openings but did not propose to replace existing windows.

49. The Authority has no objection in principle to the replacement of these windows. However the proposal involves the provision of double glazing to the replacement windows. The acceptability of double glazing in this case is heavily dependent upon assessment of the existing window frames and the detailing proposed which must represent an enhancement over the existing various frame designs.

50. The Authority possesses various photographs of the affected elevations (Document 8). Assessment of these photographs shows that the north elevation windows to the east side of the current porch are not original, contrary to the assertion in the appeal statement. A photograph from 1993 shows the first floor landing window as a 6-paned door. A scanned black and white photograph from 1993 and photographs from 1999, following removal of the former brick built porch, show that the ground floor window consisted of a lower, 6-paned opening light and an upper 2-paned light.

51. Between 1993 and 1996, the first floor window (above the former glazed door) was replaced with the existing 6-paned light. The Authority granted listed building consent in 1999 (application number NP/HPK/1099130) for the replacement of the former brick porch and three windows (Document 9). The elevation drawings approved by that consent show that this window was to have been replaced with a 6-paned light, and that the ground floor window was to be replaced with a 6-paned light, with sill raised and with stone lintel to match that above: the 2 windows would therefore have matched each other.

52. The photographs (Document 8) show that the original north elevation casement windows in locations N3, N4 and N5 (positions on appeal drawing EDB-000 T-100), in situ when the building was listed, had narrow frames and glazing bars, putty rather than beads and traditional moulded detailing to the glazing bars and internal frames. These windows, and the two narrow windows (N1 and N2, which were inappropriate top-hung outward-opening lights when listed, inserted as new openings in 1956) were replaced in 1999, as part of separate grant-aided works. These works were to replace the windows ‘like for like’ which would not have required listed building consent.

53. A condition of the grant was that the replacement windows were to be single glazed and exact copies of the existing with details and sections sizes of frames and glazing bars to be agreed with the Authority’s Architect prior to manufacture. The glazing bars were to have a moulded profile repeated around the inside of the window frames. However, the windows that were installed were made and installed with thick glazing bars, non-traditional routed joints and non-traditional moulding details, and with glazing held in place with beads rather than putty (these are the existing windows). The Authority assessed that these were not in accordance with the grant conditions and grant was not paid for these new windows.

54. The existing windows to the north gable appear to have been in situ when the building was listed.

55. In assessing proposals for replacement windows an assessment of the significance of the existing lawful windows is required. Any proposal for replacement windows must conserve or enhance the listed building. Historic windows of traditional frame design, glazing and furniture will typically make an important positive contribution to significance and normally as such should be retained or re-instated where there is evidence of unauthorised works.

56. The Authority’s position is that double glazing to listed buildings (typically slim profile units with individual panes of glass held in place with glazing compound, between glazing bars) can be acceptable when these will result in an enhancement to the character of the listed building. For example when modern windows of inappropriate design in place at the time the building was listed are replaced with windows of a more appropriate traditional design and detailing.

57. The evidence available is that the north elevation windows N3, N4 and N5 were of traditional design and detailing when the building was listed and that these were replaced incorrectly with windows to a similar design but with inappropriate detailing in 1999. The Authority would welcome the re-instatement of windows to match those in situ when the building was listed (with traditional detailing) would, therefore, be welcomed, but there is no justification for double-glazing these windows. Any replacement windows in these locations should, therefore, be single-glazed.

58. Any proposal to double-glaze any of the other windows to the north or east elevation would require a very strong justification in terms of achieving an enhancement to the listed building. This has not been provided to date.

59. The Authority therefore maintains its position that replacement of the existing windows is acceptable in principle, however that the principle of the proposed design and double glazing has not been established. In the absence of this the Authority’s view is that the proposed works would harm the significance of the listed building.

Proposed work 13: Proposed exchanging the location of the entrance door currently on the east elevation and the window currently on the north elevation of the existing porch, including providing a new door and associated making good of stonework.

60. The proposal is to retain the porch which was proposed to be demolished in the approved scheme (listed building consent NP/HPK/0714/0707) and alter it by moving the position of the entrance door currently on the east elevation to the position of the window on the north elevation. A window would be inserted in the position of the door.

61. The Authority accepts that the porch can be retained as there was no planning condition requiring the works to demolish the porch to be carried out within a specified timeframe and therefore the focus of this proposed work relates to the proposed alterations.

62. The existing porch was approved as part of a proposal to remove a flat roofed porch and external stair of brick construction (Document 8). The replacement porch that exists today represented a significant enhancement over the brick constructions in terms of materials, form and detailing. As part of the design the position of the door was changed to the east elevation with a window in the north elevation to make the porch appear less obvious as an entrance to the building.

63. The Authority maintains concerns in relation to the proposed alterations to the porch because this would reverse the position of the openings and make this element of the building read much more obviously as a main entrance to the house. The Authority’s Supplementary Design Guidance, “Alterations and Extension”, advises that lean-to porches are appropriate on less formal elevations where the door is not central to the composition. The principal elevation and main entrance to Edale House is on the south elevation, whereas the north is clearly a rear, lower-status elevation.

64. The purpose of locating the doorway on the side (gable) elevation of the existing lean-to porch at Edale House was to ensure that the north elevation retained its character as the informal rear of the property, and that the relationship between more formal, higher status south entrance and lower-status rear entrance was maintained. The Authority also has significant concerns about the width of the proposed door into the porch which would be considerably wider than the inner door from the porch or the front door to the property.

Conclusion

65. The Authority maintains that it was right to refuse listed building consent on the basis that when taken as a whole the proposed works would harm the significance of the listed building. In this case there are no overriding public benefits to justify the harm that has been identified. Therefore the Authority maintains that the proposal is contrary to Core Strategy policy L3, Saved Local Plan policy LC6 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

66. The Authority respectively requests that the appeal is dismissed.

Draft Conditions (without prejudice)

1. The works hereby approved shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with the following approved plans: drawing numbers T-000 Rev B, T-002 Rev F, T-003 Rev C and T-005 Rev B, subject to the following conditions or modifications:

2. Prior to the commencement of works to install ceiling cornice mouldings in the eastern-most ground floor room a detailed drawn scheme of the design and profile of the ceiling cornice to be installed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the National Park Authority. The works thereafter shall not be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

3. The replacement windows hereby approved shall not be carried other than complete accordance with approved plan: drawing number T-000 Rev B.

4. At the time of erection the replacement window frames shall be finished to match the colour of the existing window frames on the south elevation of the house.

5. Prior to the commencement of works to alter the porch a detailed drawn scheme of the size and detailed design of the new door shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the National Park Authority. The works thereafter shall not be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.